[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1zzuy48.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:09:27 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, vineela.tummalapalli@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: DavidWang@...oxin.com, CooperYan@...oxin.com,
QiyuanWang@...oxin.com, HerryYang@...oxin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/spectre_v2: Exclude Zhaoxin CPUs from SPECTRE_V2
Tony,
Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com> writes:
> @@ -1023,6 +1023,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> #define MSBDS_ONLY BIT(5)
> #define NO_SWAPGS BIT(6)
> #define NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT BIT(7)
> +#define NO_SPECTRE_V2 BIT(8)
>
> #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist) \
> { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist }
> @@ -1084,6 +1085,10 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = {
> /* FAMILY_ANY must be last, otherwise 0x0f - 0x12 matches won't work */
> VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT),
> VULNWL_HYGON(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT),
> +
> + /* Zhaoxin Family 7 */
> + VULNWL(CENTAUR, 7, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECTRE_V2),
> + VULNWL(ZHAOXIN, 7, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECTRE_V2),
> {}
> };
>
> @@ -1116,7 +1121,9 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> return;
>
> setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V1);
> - setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2);
> +
> + if (!cpu_matches(NO_SPECTRE_V2))
> + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2);
That's way better. But as you might have noticed yourself this conflicts
with the other patch which excludes these machines from the SWAPGS bug.
Granted it's a trivial conflict, but maintainers are not there to mop up
the mess others create. So the right thing here is to resend both
patches as a patch series with the conflict properly resolved.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists